The Media And The 2008 Election: The Perfect Storm Of Clinton Hate

Regarding the Media coverage of this primary season it now seems clear that there is a new rule that objectivity and appearances thereof are out the window. Certainly at NBC this is true. From the far right commentators like Joe Scarborough to the liberal newscaster Keith Olbermann and Establishment columnists like Eugene Robinson and Margaret Carlson any pretense of not openly rooting against the Clintons has now been discarded. NBC's performance last night was unlike any other I have seen outside of Fox News. Olbermann, who likes to trash Fox, properly in my view, should pause for a moment and consider how much his broadcast last night resembled Fox.

But Barack Obama has an opportunity here to make these new rules, as they pertain to him, lasting. And so does the progressive blogosphere. I have long stated that Obama is a Media Darling, and indeed it is one of the main reasons I tepidly support him for the nomination. Here are some of the rules that Obama and progressives should look to enforce through to the General Election:

1. Rezko is a nonissue and bringing it up is a slimy personal attack on Obama. This one has the virtue of being true. Let's get that enforceable against John McCain and the other Republicans.

2. Discussions of experience and youth are, at the least, vaguely racist, and a personal attack. When a candidate touts experience or points to Obama's lack of it, they are expressly arguing for a return to the past as opposed to looking to the future. It means they are opposed to change. Indeed, it expressly means for Republicans that they want to continue the policies of the Bush Administration. For Republicans, this also has the virtue of largely being true. The GOP field is indeed basically arguing for a continuation of Bush policies in most areas - tax cuts permanent, continuatio of the Iraq Debacle, less government regulation, etc.

3. What Obama Meant. Any review of Obama statements or past votes is subject to an explanation by Obama of what he REALLY meant. Any criticism of Obama's statements which do not take into account Obama's clarifications and explanations of what he REALLY meant are unfair personal attacks and the attacker is a "liar" who will say and do anything to get elected.

Can we get these rules enforced in the Media in a General Election? Let's hope so if Obama is the nominee.

As for those of us who have been trying to push Obama to be more of an explicit partisan Dem well we can give that up now. He does not even have to give that concern a second thought. Obama can not be criticized period now. We must operate on faith now. I am putting to an end my own critiques of his political style as I have ended my push to have Congress end the Iraq Debacle. I know when I have been licked.

I do not know if Obama has a good chance to win the nomination. I worry very much about the nature of the coverage of his South Carolina victory. Even absent the focus on race, the story the Media has pushed is how the Clintons lost, not how Obama won. Indeed, one thing is clear, BECAUSE of the Media coverage, an Obama win will be perceived as a clear repudiation of the Clinton legacy by Democrats and the country.

I am a Clinton supporter, but any of the other two candidates would be ok with me. The important thing is that a Democrat gets into the White House.

But the media coverage has just been ridiculous. No, of course the Clinton campaign aren't saints, and have played hardball. But the Obama campaign has done the same.

By playing the "I'm being unfairly attacked" card in the latest round, they have played perfectly into the mental illness that is the media hate of the Clintons. And I think people are starting to buy it.

In the 90s, when they did it against Bill Clinton, a lot of people saw the Republican partisan angle behind it all, and rallied around Bill. But now that it's between Democrats, the Democrats are starting to believe it too.

So, while I don't mind seeing my favorite candidate lose, what makes me angry is that it feels like a win for the years of pounding that the right wing noise machine has done against the Clintons. People are ready to believe that they are ruthless, soulless beings.

I don't think that there can be two media darlings during the general election. If there are, then how will the media create the tension upon which they thrive? If we end up with Obama and Romney, then we might be okay because I haven't seen much evidence of Romney lurve in the media -- although I accept that could change in a flash. But if we end up with Obama and McCain, I fear it may be McCain because the media has been dying to have him as a candidate for years. But clearly if Clinton is the nominee, the coverage will be terrible.

Is trying to win the media wars a sufficient reason to choose a nominee when all other things may be close to equal? Dunno. I think perhaps we need to turn up the heat on the media. The MSNBC coverage was disgrace and I like the way BTD critiques Keith Olbermann by comparing him to Fox. I actually found it easier to watch Pat Buchanan on CNN and Fox News last night because it wasn't an irratinal Clinton hatefest.

The point about the Clintons is significant. Will they be neutralized as a force to help Obama? It seems to me that if the narrative is 'Obama is a repudiation of the Clintons' then their role will be confined to motivating the base that still loves the Clintons, but in ways that won't attract huge media attention (is that even possible?) Or will it be the ultimate proof of Obama as a uniter when he deigns to include the Clintons in his new age of politics (ugh, that narrative makes me ill just thinking about it).

I just don't get why, in a year when the Dems should rule, we feel we have to do it by tearing down the Clintons instead of embracing them as a success story.

I agree with you. Mr. Obama and his supporters claim a new kind of politics, but are campaigning to win this election by tearing down the only 2 term president the Democrats have had since FDR. Sounds like the Republican smear machine to me. I have never been more ashamed of my party as I am today. I will not role over for Mr. Obama's rules as BTD seems to think we should. Obama will not get all the democrats' votes he thinks are due him. I spoke to 2 dems this morning that feel he is totally unqualified and will vote for McCain in the general. I for one will choose experience over 'change'. I will not vote to elect another empty suit to the office of the President.

In my personal world, I'm surrounded by 40+ women (not all white, though) who are pretty angry right now. They seem pretty evenly divided between those who think this mess has been a media creation (aided by stupidity on the part of the Clinton campaign) vs. those who think this is a media creation inspired by an Obama campaign strategy crafted in response to the Tweety backlash in NH (again aided by stupidity on the part of the Clinton campaign).

Anecdotal evidence is meaningless, of course -- I only mention this because I'm curious as to whether this is anything that may coalesce on a larger scale. Perhaps we'll have to start talking about the angry old lady syndrome or something. :-)

It does seem to me that Obama has perhaps put himself in a bind if he has neutralized the Clintons ability to campaign for him if he wins the nomination. I also wonder how branding the Clintons as running a 'southern strategy' (at best ) or being racist (at worst) is a winning strategy for the Democratic party. It seems like we're eating our own. I'm not sure how we pull back from that. So I wonder in winning the battle if we're losing the war. Or perhaps we need a sacrificial lamb to display to the electorate the seriousness of the intention to change the country's direction and somehow that is going to be the Clintons. Which is absolutely bizarre when you consider that the Clintons have always been key victims of the conservative movement and now they may also end up being the victims of the answer to the conservative movement.

He needs Hillary Clinton to get her base support out for him every bit as much - if not more - than she'll need his help if he's the nominee. I visited older women in NH and have been calling them in California, many are partisan dems who will vote regardless, but a lot of them are outright dismissive of Obama. It's not that I think they'll vote against him, but I don't see the 80-year-old woman I met in NH getting her disabled vet husband to the polls on election day for Obama like she did for Hillary. And he needs them to go to the polls for him, particularly if McCain is the nominee.

What the media is really doing is weakening both candidates, IMO. Every attack not treated seriously now against Obama will be "news" in the fall. And they are weakening the Clintons ability to support him and fight for him. Also by working so hard to drive a wedge between Obama and the Clinton on race and gender issues, they are trying to ensure that the wounds do not heal in the party by November. Honestly, I think the thing that would make the media happiest is for McCain to beat Obama and for it to somehow be the Clintons' fault.

The one thing I do blame the Obama campaign for is trying to discount the Clinton years. I understand why he's doing it and I'm sympathetic, but those years are an argument for having a Democratic president. If you paint those years as a failure then Democrats are no better than the current failing President.

Having said all of that, I fully expect Hillary Clinton to be the nominee. Looking at Feb. 5th, it's hard to see South Carolina moving the polls enough to help him and a lot of voting in California and probably other states has already occurred.

So Hillary Clinton will be the nominee and she will be weakened not only because the mainstream media hates her but because by using race, they've managed to co-opt progressive voices like Josh Marshall and others into using their anti-Clinton talking points. If Clinton loses in November, it will be because, just as Gore was painted as a liar, she will be painted the same way, as someone who will "do anything to win." Just as the Gore meme started with the Bradley campaign, the Clinton one has been promoted by the Obama supporters.

And having gotten so many democrats and progressive voices to agree now that Hillary and Bill Clinton are racist jerks who will do and say anything, no matter how underhanded, to win. Those same voices are going to have a hard time defending Clinton in November.

This entire thing has been a two-fer for the Republicans. Bob Somerby is right, Democrats never fricking learn.

But there is one thing left - who the heck on the right can beat her? At the end of the race, they are all loaded down with Bushie's debacle and they cant shake it off. I think they are toast and that is why this is hand to hand combat for the Dem nomination. Whoever makes it to the GE is so far ahead of any GOP nominee.

Last night on MSNBC there was a serious discussion criticizing the Clintons for saying things like Obama is "young and eloquent". Apparently that is condescending and racist because those are code words. It is beginning to look like ANY criticism of Obama is now racist. With that is mind, I keep asking why no one discusses the lousy job Obama has done as Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs. This was a post once held by Joe Biden and he used it to become an expert on foreign policy. Contrast that to Obama who has yet to hold one meeting of substance. Obama gets this privilege, but instead of using the opportunity to reach out to European leaders to begin to repair our strained relationship with these important allies or become more knowledgeable about foreign affairs before running for president, he completely blows off his responsibilities. I would ask if that supports Karl Rove's charge that Obama is lazy, but I am afraid that would be considered racist.http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/29/obama_europe/http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002589.php

his diplomatic skills by brokering peace in Kenya between the two warring factions. I think we should keep an eye on that conflict to see how he will resolve others. He is celebrated in Kenya as a hometown boy and has a lot of pull there.

I don't really like the idea of a person running for President acting "presidential" ahead of time re foreign policy intervention. Too close to Reagan dealing behind Carter's back re Iran hostage crisis.

* OFB PROPHLACTIC Yes, I am paid by the Hillary campaign. Yes, I hope to get a job in Hillary's administration. Yes, I am a shill. Yes, I am a hack. Yes, I am a liar. Yes, I am a racist. Yes, I am a purist. Yes, I am a troll. Yes, I am ignorant. Yes, I hate Obama. Yes, I ignore all facts that don't square with my [lying|racist|purist|shilling|hackish|trollish] preconceptions of Obama. Yes, my reading comprehension is poor. Yes, I have a hidden agenda: I hope that the Democrats lose, and to that end I support [not Obama]. Yes, I could be older than you. Yes, I think all young people are stupid. Did I mention I'm a shill and a hack? Good. Anything else?

that Clintons statement about Jesse Jackson is racist, is, in and of itself, a racist thought....If he had used any other example you wouldnt have said that....As a person that in fact voted for Jesse back then I take great exception to that statement...

And apt on one level, but stingingly meant to tar Obama as the black canditate, who represents blacks above and beyond anyone else. It also tars him with all the nonsense that has been dumped on Jackson, that he is an anti-semite for one.

Clinton looked bad by saying that and knew exactly what he was doing. He was appealing to ugly automatic race buttons. Really a low blow and rather vicious.

I would have to read the WSJ article. I do not think that Clinton was being racist, he was trying to score political points in a very low brow way. Like an elbow to the ribs when the ref isn't looking.

Jesse Jacksone win was common discussion and reference point in SC..but of course Bill says it and it gets a taint. I just roll my eyes after a while. So damned easy to get people worked up with nothing. A wonderful year for the MSM..hell, they can phone it in from the lounge chair.

Ok, once again, when did it become a tarring to be equated to Jessie Jackson? Oh, it's the people fighting the exesses of the 60's and 70's and who do not relate to the culture wars. Folks, this is about the most idiotic of all the crap.

I want one of these white commentators to walk up to SC voter and say, look how racist Bill is, he brought up Jessie Jackson. To which the black voter would respond in astonishment.

He was honoring black people for being commited? Did you ever think? Maybe he was acknowledging and old fighter? Maybe...just maybe it came off the top of his head. This twisting can get really twisted.

Is a fan of JJ and a big supporter of civil rights, But in context it was a vicious slam against a sexist remark that showed poor character on Clinton's part. He did not need to stoop to the level of Obama's equally poor remark.

UPDATE III: It's incredible to me how supposedly liberal commentators are eager to smear Jesse Jackson, and ignore his record as Presidential pioneer. Do they forget that in 1988 - the famed "Year of Jackson" proclaimed by Times political writer R.W. Apple - Jesse Jackson won 11 primaries and caucuses, and racked up seven million votes? He won a majority of Hispanic votes in New York, and 14 percent of the white vote nationally. He was the first crossover black candidate for President, and he seriously challenged Michael Dukakis from the left. Yet according to Josh Marshall and this poorly-informed DailyKos diarist, the invocation of his name by President Clinton (who is close to Jackson) is some kind of racist smear against Obama. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

But I am afraid that in context of a nasty remark by Obama your argument doesn't hold up.

THe intention of the remark was to hurt Obama by saying were he not Black he would not have won anything. I do not think that he even remotely meant take anything away from JJ accomplishments 20 years earlier.

And this cr8p turns off voters elsewhere. People of good faith do not like having their every remark scanned for racism. And if you have been a Democrat working for fairness for all it is particularly irksome. It may not be Obama doing it but it is sticking to him.

Yes, that's where we seem to be headed. One is afraid to make any observations or even discuss facts out of fear of being labeled a race baiter (or even racist). One wonders if that will translate to backlash in the voting booth or if it will help Obama. There's a sort of media hysteria that's been whipped up.

It interests me that there is little tolerance in the media or the blogs for a similar effort to expose sexism. Only the most egregious of offenses seems to register.

Actually, I found a number of young men who had a real beef with the women of this age group. You know the boomer super achieving mom. One ranted about the divorce of his parents and how his mom was like Hillary, always fighting. There was a chorus of agreement. We need to call Dr. Freud. The young men particularly have a real antipathy towards that "kind of woman". I hate to psychoanalyze a whole group, but wondering about the young men hatred. I can see the old guys.

I'm getting a bit far from the subject, but let me tell a quick story. I was chatting with a married couple who are close friends of mine last weekend. He is a die-hard Republican but has reached his limit with the war. His answer is to support Ron Paul. I had some choice words for him on that point. :)

She doesn't like any of her choices (Republican or Democratic). She is unfortunately a low information voter who gets most of her info from her husband and son filtered through their right wing frame so I've been trying to fill her in on the positions of the various Dem candidates.

Anyway, we're discussing Hillary and he starts with the usual recitation of why Hillary won't get us out of Iraq since she's a woman and various other talking points. Then he and his teenage son segue into a discussion about what a dog Hillary was in her youth and have I seen the photos? Then they proceed to head to the computer to find some on the internet.

That resulted in a stern lecture from me that they are raising a young girl in that house and do they really want to raise her to think that what matters most about her is not her accomplishments or her character, but her looks? We've come along way, baby, but there's still a long way to go.

and yes, I recognize the text. It is even more brutal for young women today in terms of appearance. And yes, we have not come very farin the appearance judging. Not sure we ever wil, frankly, when women play into it with glee.

I also think it is a male backlash against women achieving so much when males have seemingly peaked. Dont you prefer Michelle and Elizabeth?

I read recently that for the first time, young women coming out of college are earning more than guys their age. I wonder if that is true?
If so, you can imagine the anger thant causes.

And lastly, aside from your story, here is a thought: if a young man spends most of his time on the internet, where is he meeting and engaging with real women and not photos?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your hometown paper, The Chicago Tribune, endorsed John McCain today. And had some kind words for you as well. But they went on to talk about your relationship with the real estate developer now indicted Tony Rezko. And they wrote this in their editorial. "Obama's assertion in network tv interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity. Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fund-raising for Governor Rod Blagojevich in 2004. More than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos. One more time, senator, you need to divulge all there is to know about that relationship." ... (source: ABC's "This Week" - rough transcript)

Can you imagine the good publicity that Obama will receive from this trial...He will be questioned about it at his every turn...Lets all please please be realistic about the republican slime machine...

BTD, I think you understimate the rage that women feel over Hillary Clinton's treatment by the media, the blogsphere, AND the democratic establishment (including Barack Obama and John Kerry and others). They (the opponents) seem to say, well, why should we object, if it benefits us??

Suppose it was the other way around. Suppose there was a lot of racism, and Hillary was getting the preferential treatment. I think and I hope that you and the democratic establishment would have been mad and indignant about it. Blacks would have been mad about it.

You know that what Hillary faces (in addition to jealosy of her and Bill's enormous talent) is misogeny, plain and simple. Yet, you, whom I have known to be the voice of reason, say that it's OK. It may work for us.

As they say, you are making a pact with the devil. Obama may not be the second coming of Bush, but his campaign is unfortunatly run the same way. He is, in fact, inexperienced. He has far less experience than JFK or Clinton in 92. I may even suggest less than Bush 2000. In the face of enormous challenges America (and the world) face, he may make rookie mistakes, and listen to advisors too much. There is nothing to replace the intution that is borne of experience, nothing. I think advisors are there to give you facts and possibilities. The president must make the decision, and for that he needs HIS OWN experience (earned the old-fashioned way).

I don't know whether to forgive such analysis. I admire Senator Clinton and I believe she is the right person (and can't believe media in America is such a group of adolescence asses), but then again even Bob Somerby was making a sort of "oh, resistance is futile" kind of statement a short time ago.

while his opponent is Hillary. Once his opponent is a Republican, the media will do a 180. Obama's status as a media darling will disappear like magic, especialy if the Republican nominee is McCain. Obama's lack of experience will be the topic of discussion throughout the campaign and the press will determine he is not yet ready to lead. His statements will still be parsed for hidden meaning but the underlying messages will not be portrayed in a favorable light.

And when McCain's surrogates highlight Obama's experience, no one will be allowed to insinuate that there's a racial subtext. That insinuation itself will be seen as ugly, as Obama's supporters playing the race card.

A study showed McCain had the most by far appearances on Sunday talk shows even though he wasn't doing anything newsworthy. When the two media darlings go head-to-head McCain will be the undisputed darling -- I predict.

Michael Kinsley once wrote that when he was on cross fire, they had a nickname for McCain (and IIRC a couple of other pols). They call them the 6:30's, which meant if the crossfire didn't have a guest that night, they could count on McCain to come with the shortest notice. That's why Media likes him, they feed off each other.

Don't understand why I just can't get with the program. Never thought that I would see the day when kind words by Kristol, Brooks, Sullivan, and Broder would be considered a plus for a DEMOCRATIC presidential candidate during the primary. I guess if you live long enough, all things are possible.

BTW, did I ever mention that I haven't liked Kool Aid, no matter the flavor, since the age of eight.

you are ready to move to a higher rank, beyond Tepid, within the Obamanation.

You are ready for the secret ceremony. To become a Novice you drink the sacred drink (red KoolAid naturally). To become a full member you get an Obama logo tatooed on your left buttock. If the member is formerly Republican they can choose the right. The logo is the one that got leaked on this diary. To become a Master you get a lobotomy.

Seriously, BTD, I was glad to see that you got the full context of the Reagan comments recently. And your apology was noble.

But I have to admit I have been alarmed how in the progressive blogosphere, people are often taking snippets of comments and completely misunderstanding or purposely distorting them. I've learned not only to get the fuller context via text, but view videos to see body language, setting and other elements of context that don't come across in transcipts.

I'm very new to the blogosphere and I'm shocked at the lack of sophistication about how people discern between information and misinformation. You and Jerilyn do much better than others, but we all need to work on this or the progressive blogosphere turns into the blind leading the blind.

I've been thinking a lot about the word inculcation lately with respect to the blogs. The blogosphere doesn't choose between good information and bad, it just takes whatever is said the most often or fits with the narrative people like best and makes it conventional wisdom. Repeat it often enough, and it might as well be fact.

It's a weird thing, a shift from what it used to be, but I guess that looking back I've seen the signs for a while.

A few in the progressive blogosphere IMO are less interested in facts and intellectual honesty than they are in winning. They can often get lots of others others to go along with them, as long as they repeat themselves often enough. It's a new style of Gore-ing, and it's incredible (and more than a little disturbing) to me to watch it.

Obama doesn't do "partisan" very well because He is not, well, partisan. Obama is for Obama in much the same way that Lieberman is for Lieberman.

Which is why Obama can push Reagan as "transformational" and Republicans as the "party of ideas." Obama does not pick up on the partisan stuff because it is not really relevant to what he thinks about - Obama.

I came across exit polling that Obama does much better with regular churchgoers than the less observant. Seems to fit his campaign style, the guy sounds like a preacher. That should be a big help in states like SC and OK and AL that will go red in the general anyway.

The Clintons also tout Hillary's record of working with Republicans in the Senate.

Do you really think Obama is for Obama any more than Clinton is for Clinton or Romney is for Romney?

So Obama is trying to go for a mandate and present himself as the guy with the next big idea, trying to attract an aura of icons like Kennedy and Reagan. He's not pushing Reagan and Republicans, he's pushing Obama, just like most any other candidate would.

I understand you're an apostate, and resist following the new rules, but do your critiques of Obama entail an implicit belief in Clinton that's also unrealistic?

The only real difference I see is that Obama, like Reagan and unlike Hillary, is able to elevates standard political rhetoric to a unrealistic level of belief and faith and trust. He can create a movement. Maybe not for us unbelievers.

I'm shocked. Politicians are not selfless, egoless, altruistic saints? I've never considered that before.
Obama is for Obama, McCain is for McCain, Romney is for Romney, Hillary is for Hillary and Bill is for...Bill.

that the kind of cult of personality support that Obama inspires in some supporters - certainly not all - will inevitably lead to their disillusionment. Because many seem to honestly believe the crap Obama is selling that he is somehow better than politics when, from my perspective, he's running one of the most cynical campaigns for president I've seen.

And I've now got a foot in Tom Watson's camp of where I'll always vote against the Republican, but it's getting harder and harder for me to have any enthusiasm at the prospect of voting for Barack Obama. Part of that is the campaign he's run, part of it is the hateful crap spewing from so many of his supporters.

now forgive me for saying this, but who says that his net followers are not republicans in thin disguise??

Lot of times, I don't see them bringing any argument or any life experience or feelings of their own in support of Obama. Lots of them just repeat the same talking points. To me, that's a bit telling!

Regarding his crowds, his campaign has been very clever to manufacture that line, according to some reports, they are very aggressive in getting the crowds to his events. At the beginning, they would have this huge small donor numbers, which came from selling t-shirts and hats. Obama is marketed as a brand. That's exactly it.

As Bill Clinton put it so eloquently (and simply), Obama is a gamble you take. Gamble with his amount of experience, gamble that the press infatuation with him would last, gamble that the public wouldn't take a close look at him vs. McCain, and say to themselves, "why, should we exactly vote for this guy", also gamble that he wouldn't make rookie blunders.

In Iowa, where I have family, friends, etc., they said that talking to people at Obama rallies, lots of them came over from Illinois, Minnesota, etc., to get to see him. And a commenter on TOB (that other blog) from Massachusetts reported he and a lot of others went to NH rallies for the same reason.

So it may be as difficult to assess the crowds, coming to see a cultural phenomenon, as it is to assess who the blog commenters are. So many so readily say they won't vote Dem for anyone but their candidate, they're perfectly happy turning to McCain, etc., that I've long thought that a lot of them are Republicans or at least very Repub-leaning Indies. Dems for a day crossing over in primaries and caucuses, maybe Dems for only a few minutes on the blogs.

that, because you don't understand Obama's appeal to people. No Obama supporter has ever thought he was JC or perfect. It is Clinton lovers that think finding out he is, you know, a real human being, will destroy him. When they point it out and no one cares, they insult them and call them crazy.

I've never heard an Obama supporter claim that every one was conspiring against him, and call everyone that doesn't support him a traitor. But read even the Clinton supporter comments on this site. Even you own posts claiming nearly every person in the media is against Clinton, liberal and conservative.

One of the funniest is "what he really meant rule." You know i think that more applies to Clinton's vote on Iraq, being a vote for diplomacy. Or Bill comments, like "Obama = Jesse Jackson."

What is so depressing to me is what a piece of cake it will be for the Republican Slime Machine to take out Obama.

I can already see the hit ads with Obama pressing the wrong buttons when voting, then voice-over asking if we can afford a president who might push the nuclear button by mistake. I can also see pictures of Obama sucking up to Rezko over and over again. The cons are always getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar, so they would love to do that to a democrat.

There are so many ways to hit him that they must be salivating in anticipation. I really don't think whining is going to work this time.

If you care to have an insight into how the media will treat Obama in the GE should he eek out the nominatin, you need look no further than to how the media are treating Hillary right now. Obama will first be eviscerated and subsequently skewered. We are fools to believe anything other than that.

and Obama supporters to imply skeptics may have racial bias is really chilling. The unwillingness of the media and BHO's ardent fans to fully vet him before the general election is equally disturbing.

The only time the media loses its timidity is in the case of the Clintons. The documented lies of GWB, the DOJ8, torture, the mendacity and greed of the deregulated banking industry, arms sales, etc. all go glossed over, but give them a good Clinton bashing opportunity (altho Bill had a case of horse and mouth) and suddenly these eunuchs grow cajones.

The media has always solidly gotten behind the status quo candidates eating, regurgitating, and vomiting back their spin (WMDs???).

This is the first time I can remember-going back 30 years--that the media is siding with the anti-establishment candidate. I don't disagree that he is a media darling, or that Clinton fatigue is a factor, but the media always always picks sides--always. Were you born yesterday?

you could have a point. On the democratic side however, the media just about always favors the insurgent. Recent examples are Bill Bradley in '00 and Howard Dean in '04, until they decided to kill him with the scream.

You should expect something similar to happen with Obama, and if the media doesn't do it, the republicans and their spin machine will. Oh, they don't care if you scream racist at them either.

will beat Obama like a big drum and the more he hollers racist, the more they will laugh and keep doing it because being called a racist is no big deal to them....Most of them are anyway...Obama cant do his "oh mommie they are picking on me" routine with them....The Clintons are a democratic success story that has been effectively torn down by the corporately controlled media...they make heros out of their presidents and villans out of ours...So I guess we will see in the very near future if the American public agrees with that media accessment...

people have thought about the power of the women in this country....They are on fire for Hillary...Even Republicans pulling a reverse Bradley effect by telling their corporate hubbys they will vote for McCain and then voting for Hillary...Makes me laugh....Also Obama won't have near the support in the General Election that he has now in the media....and his tactics now will be laughed at in the general...they only work now because the media wants him to get the nomination...

It always reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns run for governor. He's doing poorly because he's an evil man, but once he starts railing against "the bureaucrats" (as advised to him by his campaign team), he shoots up in the polls.

Thanks for filling in the all-important context, which I missed in reports yesterday of Bill saying this. So once again, it was in reply to an attack -- once again, an attack by Obama about facing "two Clintons." Ditto the SC debate, when Obama was first to go on the attack with his snide comment about not knowing which Clinton he was facing, with Hillary right in front of him.

Here's another Obama rule in the media: Make it all about race in whatever the Clintons say, but ignore all the ways that Obama genders his attacks. Every time he talks about "two Clintons," women hear what he is saying: That a woman candidate can't compete on her own, that her husband is more important and the real opposition, etc.

Corollary Obama rule, of course, is that Hillary isn't facing two Obamas, although Michelle has been out there on the campaign trail and dissing the Clintons, too. But that's okay with the media -- which also are not picking up on the astonishing report that Michelle's husband went along on one of her job interviews before he would let her take the position. Btw, guys, the verb "let her" is a red flag to women. And we're spreading the word on that incident in the past of the "two Obamas."

And another Obama rule in the media is that the turnout is all about Obama, not about Clinton -- even though 60 percent of the voters in SC were women, an astonishing increase even from the usual 54 percent of voters who comprise about 51 percent of the population. So here's a question that won't be asked in the media: How come Obama is not bringing out the men in similar numbers?

Cream, thank you! I was whining (er, trying to bring up) the whole "let her" take the job thing last week. I find it APPALLING, even more so because it is proudly posted on his own website.

And the two Clintons thing hits me in the gut, too. She is a brilliant, well-spoken, amazing woman who has fought her entire life for her place in the world. I have not been this excited about a presidential contender since Bill ran-and I dare say that I am even more so with Hillary.

not all of us (both in the blogs and in real time)are starry-eyed romantics with glazed over eyes when it comes to Obama. It's disheartening to be categorized so reflexively. And I would hope that ppl try to disregard the Obama zealots and not disregard his candidacy just b/c some of his supporters are too off the charts.

In his mind it supports his view of himself that he is not partisan, that he is merely the 4th estate criticizing whomever happens to be in power at the time. He was explaining on CNN or HN this morning that he was constantly critical of Clinton's lying about Lewinski when he was president.

Olbermann is not a serious commentator, he's just an entertaining former ESPN sportscaster, who's occasionally right and oftentimes superficial, but a nice foil to O'Reilly, but rather irritating when he tries to adopt a Edward R. Murrow air of serious journalism.

Olberman is reading the Mainstream blogs and takes the lead from them on what is progressive. He found a base and parrots them. He is not an analyst on his own. He copies. His program lately is just lifting the stories from the blogs, nothing new comes from him. And the O"Reily stuff is infantile. Why give O'reily all the time on your show?

Yes, it's instructive that 6 months ago Democrats were all sporting bumper stickers that said: When Bill Lied No One Died.
Now it's all "Hate the Clintons, Hate the Clintons."
I will not vote for anyone who trashes the legacy of their great leaders.

I'm quite sure Hillary has continued to have every bit as many events as she's always had, if not more. For some reason, those never get any press coverage. Look at her speech last night, no need to show her for more than 2 minutes if all she's going to do is talk about issues and policies.

I cannot understand how they say that Obama got a wide spectrum of voters when he only scored 24% with whites. It's as if the fact that Edwards shared some of the other whites with Hillary negates that issue. Two days ago, based on polls, folks were railing against the racist south and saying that Obama had a problem with white voters. Now, after the election, we find that the polls were pretty spot on as far as racial divide, only folks have been saying that he unified people. I just don't freaking get it.

Obama's peak number is around 35% nationally. It's dipped below that some and gone up a bit occasionally, but it's pretty much been around 35%. Nothing has changed about this. WHY is he being touted as the viable candidate??? This is as insane as the pundits who, right before NH kicked them in the teeth, were saying that Hillary was out of money and was going to quit that night.

The media loves McCain even more than they do Obama. In the GE, if Obama is the nominee, watch the whole thing turn on a dime. The Republicans already have FOX to carry water for them. They will simply say that the liberal media supports a leftwing liberal. If Obama is the nominee get ready for another eight years of Republican presidency.

pissed him off and he said something he wouldn't have ordinarily said.

The media has been talking all week about how an Obama win my be a pyrric victory if he took only mostly blacks. Maybe Clinton had been researching the last time that happened.

I didn't like the statement, but I think it was taken WAYYY out of proportion.

And BTW, I won't vote for Hillary NOR Mr. Kumbaya in the primaries. My initial desire was to vote for Obama, but his supporters on the net have turned me completely against him. They are a cult and a bunch of bullies. They've already destroyed the DailyKos, turned it into the equivalent of a Yahoo Message board (remember Yahoo message boards?)

I can handle them, it's just BS I don't need. On the other hand, they play the victim strategy to the point that I think THEY may be racist, because they're trying so hard to play the race card to protect Obama. If they win? I'll be off the message boards because I suspect they'll be as poor of winners as the Republicans are.

I know that makes me a bad D. I have good company -- a whole Congress full of bad D's....with only a few exceptions.

it seems like an attempt to diminish Obama's victory by inferring another African American won in this state, therefore, it's no biggy, just a blip that should be expected. It's also trying to make Obama a strictly African Americna candidate by comparing him to Jesse Jackson who truly was a strictly African American candidate who was viewed with suspicion by many whites.

This is where the waters get muddy. The implication is that if Obama is associated with Jackson it is bad, cause people will see him as black. The racist element is that there are good black people like Obama, and "bad black people like Jackson". Then we come to Obama wanting to distance himself from the culture was and excesses of the 60's and 70's. Do Obama supporters also want to distance Obama from being black, but yet at the same time. Where is this going to? It's a quagmire.

Jackson fought the fight and will continue fighting it. Why is saying that in 84 and 88 he did it as well a bad thing?

a very bright person (although I think Hillary Clinton is more intelligent) but if he has to consider the implications of his answer to each question before answering, all he can really do is not answer. Or, I suppose, he could have sd., yes, deal with it.

80% of one section of the population and 24% of another, what does that tell you? Take race out of it. Say that 80% of women are going for Hillary and 24% are going for Obama. That means that Obama does not do as well with women voters. Now say that Obama only gets 24% of white voters. Because you take gender out of it and insert race, suddenly, it's a racist thing to make a statistical observation.

And the funny thing is, it is mostly white people accusing other white people of being racist, and then taking the "news" to the street to stir up white and black alike.

Does someone have a running tally of how many national media pundits are black? Tweety is so white you can see his veins under his skin. Talk about racist!

Gore was called a sleazy liar. The Clintons are not only sleazy liars, they're racist too!

My problem with the coverage, frankly, is not so much that the Clintons have been zinged on the race issue - obviously, they've toed the line a few times - but that Obama has somehow emerged completely innocent in the fray. I mean, raising a huge kerfuffle over the MLK comments, and saying Hillary didn't cry over Katrina? That's some pretty hardball stuff there.

given the Rezko trial is in February. Yep. February...with a prosecutor who draws media coverage bigtime.

Obama will be asked about it by every reporter with a microphone and it will be insinuation gone berserk...over and over...images connecting the dots for the tv viewers. Already saw it this morning on McLaughlin...very effective timeline for a Republican ad in the general after they media makes Resko's name a household word. It won't fly with hardcore Dems if Obama is the candidate but that won't matter. It would play with Independents and uncommitted voters...especially of it is Obama vs. McCain. Doubt McCain will be tarnished as much by his own scandal which only the Dems will bring up...never the media.

two pieces up now under ?media." One says Bill Clinton says Barack Obama is the black candidate no; no support for that statement in the piece. Then Obama's response to a question about Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson statement.

The Kennedys have endorsed Obama not only because he reminds them of JFK, but also because the Clintons remind them of LBJ. If there is anything the Kennedys and the liberal media can agree on it's that they don't like seeing a bunch of hillbillies in the White House who think of politics as mud wrestling or roller derby instad of a friendly game of touch football or beanbag.